24 hours in a day – 24 bottles of beer in a case – Coincidence? I think not
Supernova GBP/JPY Mini Trend Catcher
- #2,343
- Oct 30, 2007 7:41pm Oct 30, 2007 7:41pm
Hi Orion!
Seems that some of the trades were left behind after switching the EA versions. But there seems to be a more general problem with closing the trades! Maybe Sky can look into that while coding the newest version with all the nice gimmicks inside. I really believe that may be the final version.
You state above that you are trading 6 pairs on 15M. It still amazes me, that you and finnfx and many more are successful trading the smaller TFs with the EA. I feel more comfortable trading manually there until now. Your 6 pairs will have a different Average True Range from each other. Wouldn't it pay out if you would try and find out individual TP/SL/TS for each?
Maybe GBPJPY would even look nice with a TP at 50 and a SL of 20-25, while EURJPY may easily cover 40-45 pips and so on. I am trying the settings for the managetp right now and it seems to work fine, when you are defining individual targets for each pair.
Just a thought though ...: If it works just fine - no need to change!
Greetz!
Gnat
ROTFL... NOW HE'S GONE!!
Just to clarify.....15M is not successful at all for me. I am merely testing the functionality of the EA so the TF is unimportant to me right now but I did want to use the smaller TF in order to test the opening/closing of a lot of trades.
It makes perfect sense that each currency pair would have it's own individual settings. I'm trying to eat this elephant one bite at a time
- #2,345
- Oct 30, 2007 7:59pm Oct 30, 2007 7:59pm
- | Joined Oct 2007 | Status: work in progress | 1,009 Posts
Sure morse!! LOL and I am just about to popp off to bed!
Here come the settings for you:
Ciao
Gnat
guess I'm a bit confused with the meaning of your setting in egards to the filters because there are so many of them
Don't chase the market, Let the market come to you
Fuki on the Bagovino thread made a point that I think is pertinent.
He argues that manual trading reflects a trading "style", since intuition is a component of trading decisions. Each trader will have a different result. A trading "system" is hard-science, and should be able to be coded to enable computers to execute defined parameters reliably. Because of the inherent speed of computers, and their complete lack of intuition, each trader should have the same result, given the same parameters. I am reminded that a major trading company used a proprietary trading "system" to make a profit of about $ 36,000,000,000.00 (billion) last year, presumably nearly hands-off. Airlines are reputedly finding that modern computers can fly aircraft better than can humans, including collision-avoidance, and take-offs and landings. In medicine, computer-controlled lasers are much more precise than are human surgeons. The application of computers to data that can be coded is fairly recent in terms of investments, but it permits someone who lacks experience or intuition to function like a professional. Admittedly, if the coding is not perfect, then the results will not be on par with someone who has these traits. I am arguing that a properly-coded system will invariably be superior to the human, who can only watch so many things at a time, and suffers from a need to sleep.
Glenn
He argues that manual trading reflects a trading "style", since intuition is a component of trading decisions. Each trader will have a different result. A trading "system" is hard-science, and should be able to be coded to enable computers to execute defined parameters reliably. Because of the inherent speed of computers, and their complete lack of intuition, each trader should have the same result, given the same parameters. I am reminded that a major trading company used a proprietary trading "system" to make a profit of about $ 36,000,000,000.00 (billion) last year, presumably nearly hands-off. Airlines are reputedly finding that modern computers can fly aircraft better than can humans, including collision-avoidance, and take-offs and landings. In medicine, computer-controlled lasers are much more precise than are human surgeons. The application of computers to data that can be coded is fairly recent in terms of investments, but it permits someone who lacks experience or intuition to function like a professional. Admittedly, if the coding is not perfect, then the results will not be on par with someone who has these traits. I am arguing that a properly-coded system will invariably be superior to the human, who can only watch so many things at a time, and suffers from a need to sleep.
Glenn
- #2,351
- Edited 3:37am Oct 31, 2007 2:47am | Edited 3:37am
Both of you guys make perfect sense... I've chatted with each individually and respect the opinions of both very much.
Half of my forex dream is to trade manually and with a high level of profit. The other part of my dream is to have a robot trade when I must sleep (late London- early NY).
I intend to pursue my dream to the fullest!
I do recognize that OUR thread has been gravitating to EA issues and would not be opposed to a new thread dedicated to the EA. Now, I'm certainly not the one to lead such a thread (I don't know squat, still learning here) but there are individuals here every day, that could. (you/we know who you are)
I for one, would look forward to such an addition to the FF community.
Then we could rededicate this thread to the "art" of trading SUPERNOVA!
Now, let's get on to sacking the boss!!!
Half of my forex dream is to trade manually and with a high level of profit. The other part of my dream is to have a robot trade when I must sleep (late London- early NY).
I intend to pursue my dream to the fullest!
I do recognize that OUR thread has been gravitating to EA issues and would not be opposed to a new thread dedicated to the EA. Now, I'm certainly not the one to lead such a thread (I don't know squat, still learning here) but there are individuals here every day, that could. (you/we know who you are)
I for one, would look forward to such an addition to the FF community.
Then we could rededicate this thread to the "art" of trading SUPERNOVA!
Now, let's get on to sacking the boss!!!
- #2,352
- Oct 31, 2007 5:37am Oct 31, 2007 5:37am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Unconventionable Conventionist | 2,768 Posts
- #2,353
- Oct 31, 2007 5:42am Oct 31, 2007 5:42am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Unconventionable Conventionist | 2,768 Posts
- #2,354
- Oct 31, 2007 5:44am Oct 31, 2007 5:44am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Unconventionable Conventionist | 2,768 Posts
\\
Just to clarify.....15M is not successful at all for me. I am merely testing the functionality of the EA so the TF is unimportant to me right now but I did want to use the smaller TF in order to test the opening/closing of a lot of trades.
It makes perfect sense that each currency pair would have it's own individual settings. I'm trying to eat this elephant one bite at a time
- #2,355
- Oct 31, 2007 5:49am Oct 31, 2007 5:49am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Unconventionable Conventionist | 2,768 Posts
with these setting when it says filters true, do you have ALL of them set to true? or just the dmi and mom??
guess I'm a bit confused with the meaning of your setting in egards to the filters because there are so many of them
The tableau is by Qpip and she is testing intensivley but only on the Supernova v2.0 right now. So the "Filters" are the original system basic indicators DMI & MOM.
Although the other indicators have been discussed here and are a very good addition, they are not yet tested out completely. Guess how many tests must be run to cross-optimize all that!
With the given length of the thread it is only natural that a certain level of confusion must arise. That is why I am trying to stay on top of that and I also need to revisit parts after some time.
So: Filters are DMI&MOM in the Tableau!!
Ciao
Gnat
- #2,356
- Oct 31, 2007 6:23am Oct 31, 2007 6:23am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Unconventionable Conventionist | 2,768 Posts
To Nofx, Glenn and Wolfe and others who may chime in later on...
Romans, countymen and lovers
hear me for my cause
and be silent so you may hear!
Censor me in your wisdom
and awake your senses
so you may the better judge:
I clearly see the arguments of both sides and I am clearly split in half on the topic myself, which is a big advantage in my eyes. I love to take trades manually on smaller timeframes, sometimes only to have them confirmed later on by higher timeframes and just ride them. I actually got out of a 15M trade that was later on visible up to the 4H and picked up 165 pips on the GBPJPY.
My robots also went into that trade and they took it later off the 1H chart. They still hold that position and will not chicken out until stopped one way or the other. Nofx has stated a good point, that many EAs are smithed out of a system and never work, but it never applied here. The very first EA has settings that work. The newer generation is straight forward profitable. Due to some extra experience the EAs were forced to mirror the human mind in exiting the trades.
The fact that there are many questions and due to time also redundant questions about the EAs, their settings and their use, is only natural too and it is to the bigger part Glenn's and my problem. Awesome is surely setting a highlight for all manual traders and her additions concerning the Ichi Kumo and daily pivot for exiting on her 15M trades is just brilliant. I would love the manual trading fraction to post more and to show their charts and describe their good work (or even to show how a trade may still turn against you).
But on a personal note, I am not willing nor able to have a third thread to jump to for questions and initial start-up help. I am a full time trader - so I do not need to leave the office or come back from work, but I need enough room to make some money and sometimes I am already hard pressed with all the things to monitor. So I would ask you not to cut this thread in half and have a manual and a robo side, as both sides have valuable insights for each other (If you trade off Qpips tableau manually you will certainly beat the robots for 25%-40%!). I am willing to keep all under one hood and I have no problem diving into the manual world and back to robo-town.
So do me a favour and let this discussion end about ... NOW ... It was started out of good cause, but as this thread is unique in many ways, it is also different from the others in form of success in both forms of trading!
Best Wishes!
Gnat
BTW: Who can tell me, from which famous play the intro text stems?
Romans, countymen and lovers
hear me for my cause
and be silent so you may hear!
Censor me in your wisdom
and awake your senses
so you may the better judge:
I clearly see the arguments of both sides and I am clearly split in half on the topic myself, which is a big advantage in my eyes. I love to take trades manually on smaller timeframes, sometimes only to have them confirmed later on by higher timeframes and just ride them. I actually got out of a 15M trade that was later on visible up to the 4H and picked up 165 pips on the GBPJPY.
My robots also went into that trade and they took it later off the 1H chart. They still hold that position and will not chicken out until stopped one way or the other. Nofx has stated a good point, that many EAs are smithed out of a system and never work, but it never applied here. The very first EA has settings that work. The newer generation is straight forward profitable. Due to some extra experience the EAs were forced to mirror the human mind in exiting the trades.
The fact that there are many questions and due to time also redundant questions about the EAs, their settings and their use, is only natural too and it is to the bigger part Glenn's and my problem. Awesome is surely setting a highlight for all manual traders and her additions concerning the Ichi Kumo and daily pivot for exiting on her 15M trades is just brilliant. I would love the manual trading fraction to post more and to show their charts and describe their good work (or even to show how a trade may still turn against you).
But on a personal note, I am not willing nor able to have a third thread to jump to for questions and initial start-up help. I am a full time trader - so I do not need to leave the office or come back from work, but I need enough room to make some money and sometimes I am already hard pressed with all the things to monitor. So I would ask you not to cut this thread in half and have a manual and a robo side, as both sides have valuable insights for each other (If you trade off Qpips tableau manually you will certainly beat the robots for 25%-40%!). I am willing to keep all under one hood and I have no problem diving into the manual world and back to robo-town.
So do me a favour and let this discussion end about ... NOW
... It was started out of good cause, but as this thread is unique in many ways, it is also different from the others in form of success in both forms of trading!Best Wishes!
Gnat
BTW: Who can tell me, from which famous play the intro text stems?
- #2,359
- Oct 31, 2007 7:33am Oct 31, 2007 7:33am
- Joined Jun 2007 | Status: Unconventionable Conventionist | 2,768 Posts
Gnat,
My man Brutus was speaking in "The Life and Death of Julius Caesar."
Really a unique thread!!
Happy Trading
GMatt
- #2,360
- Oct 31, 2007 7:46am Oct 31, 2007 7:46am
- Joined Apr 2006 | Status: Metatrader Programmer | 1,422 Posts
Skyline
For the latest EA, can you explain how the EA works for the following scenario when all EntryOn is set to TRUE except for EntryOnCCI = FALSE?
All conditions met, a long signal triggered a buy - that is good - but why is it only happening when CCI crosses +100 ?
A few bars later, the CCI crosses from above and crosses down through +100 line, why is a buy order being triggered again? I would think this is telling me that it may be time to exit and not to put in another position.
I'm completely re-coding the SuperNova EA and this kind of issues should not occur anymore, so pls trash v1.3 and wait until v1.4 will be released
Btw CCI is supposed to work in this way :
1) long entry is when CCI is crossing from below the -100 line
2) short entry is when CCI is crossing from above the +100 line
3) long exit is when CCI is crossing from above the +100 line
4) short exit is when CCI is crossing from below the -100 line
As you can see entry and exit on CCI are indipendent each other.
Cheers,
Skyline